Conventional Fun and Focus

Man is, by nature, a political animal.
            Aristotle, Politics       

Over this past week, we have been treated (or for some, subjected) to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida.  Next week, the Democrats will meet in the great town of Charlotte, North Carolina.  For a political junkie and a government teacher such as myself, I find these acts of pageantry quite fascinating and usually am suckered in every time, hanging on every speech and subplot.  What many might not know is that the current manifestation of the nominating convention is a recent development.  However, the theatrical nature of the conventions has been a constant and a source of their draw. 

In the 19^th-century, American politics were radically different than the spectacles broadcast every four summers.  There were no primaries prior to the Progressive Movement of the first two decades of the next century.  Therefore, the battle for a party’s nomination was a fight, sometimes literally, on the convention floor.  In 1880, the Republicans were mired in a battle that pitted James Garfield from Ohio, an advocate for civil service reform and Roscoe Conklin of New York, a staunch patronage promoter.  Convention battles have also been the proving ground of splinter parties, such as the Populist split with the Democrat Party in 1896 and the Dixiecrats from the same party in 1948.  The Republicans, not as old as their main competitor, have wrangled with progressive factions in 1904, 1908 and 1912.  Of course, the most divisive election was the 1860 election that pitted a Republican, two Democrats and a very vague third (fourth?) party.  Abraham Lincoln won that election with less than 40% of the vote. 

Conventions have been so contentious, violence has erupted from time to time.  In 1968, the violence erupted both on the convention floor and outside in the streets for the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.  The clash between police and protestors is well documented but few know of the fist-fights that nearly erupted on the convention floor.  When a Georgia delegate was being taken from the convention hall by security, CBS reporter Dan Rather tried to interview the man but security attacked, dragging him to the ground and punching him in the stomach.  Then, during the speech to introduce the candidate, George McGovern, Sen. Abraham Ribicoff (D-CT) railed against what he termed the “Gestapo tactics” used by the Chicago police against protestors.  Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, a man feared by many, moved toward the stage, being held back by several aids and his son, as he screamed and pointed at the stage, cursing out the senator and, in the colorful metaphors of Chicago, told him to go home. 

Since the 1970s, the nominating convention has slowly lost some of its intrigue and excitement.  After 1976, the candidates are known well in advance and the conventions have taken on the quality of a high school football pep rally.  It is a time where each party chooses speakers and multimedia to express its vision and what it offers for the country in the form of policy or initiatives.  Parties also take the time to point out how the other party is horribly wrong.  There are silly hats, sillier signs and absurd commentary.  To my knowledge, the idea of a convention and all it entails is rather unique with many of the world’s democracies following a parliamentary democracy with proportional representation and without the strong, separate executive branch.  As for the past week in Tampa, the Republicans, from a non-political point of view, offered a well-run spectacle.  Next week, it will be the Democrats and again, I will be glued to the television. 

The Gathering of Storm Clouds

There are a series of events that are transpiring that could quickly destabilize various regions around the world.  In the past, the United States played a large and influential role in settling situations and calming fears – allowing for “cooler heads to prevail.”  In the past, the United States displayed a leadership that could convince otherwise truculent world leaders to compromise or stand down.  Critics of American foreign policy denounced the overbearing and bullying democracy.  President Obama feels that the U.S. has inappropriately and insensitively projected itself on world affairs in the past and promised not to follow that same path.  Activists around the world applauded the declaration.  Yet, in the Middle East and the Far East, things are quickly deteriorating and it begs the question if a stronger president could not have stemmed the tide. 

A while back, I worried that Syria was turning into a Rwanda.  Today, the international community has allowed a government to butcher its own people on a massive scale.  In the absence of international action or leadership, organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood have moved in to help the rebels.  However, the bloodshed continues and the government remains unrepentant even as its structure crumbles around them.  A new envoy, Algerian diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi, now has the unenviable task of convincing a government who has ignored international pressure for over a year to put aside its aggression on its own people with little tangible outside help from the Americans and Europeans. 

To the southwest, Israeli leaders have given up hope of the international community rendering aid and are in the process of considering, if reports are to be believed, a strategic attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.  Israel has, unfortunately, needed to take this path before when it attacked and destroyed Iraq’s nascent nuclear reactor in 1981.  Recent reports on Iran’s nuclear capabilities suggest it is further along than anyone thought.  Not only does such developments threaten Israel but it is reasonable to suggest that predominantly Sunni Muslim countries are also at risk – not to mention western Europe and other U.S. allies.  While many international activists chastise Israel and despair of its “militaristic” tendencies, Israel might be forced to do what years of diplomacy have failed to accomplish. 

On a group of Japanese controlled islands, a bit of opera is playing out between the Japanese government and activists from China. The Senkaku islands are the center of a debate as to who controls the area. When the Japanese Coast Guard detained and questioned the activists, Beijing issued a strong condemnation as anti-Japanese protests erupted through the country. At stake for these islands south of Okinawa and just north of Taiwan are a litany of gas fields and a heavily traveled commercial shipping lane. China declares ancient rights to the islands but Japan has controlled them since the late 1800s.  To what extent China would be willing to fight over the islands is uncertain but two obdurate, tradition-rich and stubborn countries at odds is a point of concern.  Unfortunately, no one outside the region seems to notice.
 
Any one of these incidents can, by themselves, create the kind of foreign policy headache that risks the lives of tens of thousands. A strong and influential hand has traditionally been sought out from the United States but at present, it appears to be absent. As time goes by, the European Union grows increasingly pre-occupied with holding its economic structure in place. The Arab League has proven, to date, to be as ineffective and toothless as the organization it was patterned after – the United Nations. The world community releases one paper condemnation and outrage after another but things continue to deteriorate.

The president is pre-occupied by the coming election as any president would but Mr. Obama also needs to understand that he cannot focus solely on November. The boldness he displayed in ending the Osama bin Laden threat is required once more but he seems reluctant to enter the fray. If this is what we can expect from the president with an additional four years, perhaps we should take a longer look at Mr. Romney. Sadly though, if talk is to be believed, some of the situations could collapse long before the November election.

Why I’m a Conservative

Government can’t do anything for you except in proportion as it can do something to you.
            William F. Buckley, Jr.

As a teacher and one who comes from a predominantly Democratically-controlled state, the descendent of Jewish immigrants and union workers, it might seem odd that I call myself a conservative.  Some might go so far as to say it is down-right miraculous.  However, as I grew up, perhaps as a condition of my contrarianism, I saw the things around me and grew suspect of their validity and effectiveness.  I heard the rhetoric but did not see the results.  I heard the passion but missed the certainty and self-assuredness.  It was once said that religious faith does not come from wisdom but from personal experience.  For me, political awareness and conviction materialized in much the same way. 

For me, conservatism is a belief that does not belittle others but believes in the inherent worth and ability of the individual.  For example, fiscal conservatism suggests that every person has the chance to rise as high, economically, as they want and the U.S. created a system that allows people to do just that.  For nearly 300 years, people have flocked to what was to be and what is the United States in search for a better life.  It does not matter a man’s race, country of origin or previous experiences, in the U.S. a man has the chance to stand on his own merit.  Liberals, in order to maintain their own power structure, assumes a perpetual disadvantage of racial, economic or religious proportions.  The policies with which liberals do not agree are framed as a slight or as particularly injurious to minorities (the recent voter identification requirements an example).   

The belief in the individual also discounts the notion of the conservative as a racist, as often suggested by liberals – usually mentioned in arguments over entitlements.  A true conservative feels that it is better to teach a person to take of themselves than to use the government as a means of filling that role.  Many liberals see the extent of their concern as directly proportional to how much they are willing to take care of others.  Within their arguments, they use terms like “the disadvantaged” or “the unfortunate” and in the process, they adopt a paternalistic attitude that, to a conservative, is demeaning and strips them of their humanity.  Over the last eighty years, liberals have suggested that their policies and attitudes are designed to help but poverty has not receded.  In fact, in the last forty or fifty years, it seems to have worsened.  However, there is no reflection upon these policies and liberal calls for endless government spending that has nothing to show for the expense.  If one assumes that a person is in need of government help because of a minority status, is that not the real racist?   

Therefore, my belief in the individual also negates the need for an overpowering and all-encompassing government.  Our Founding Fathers had an inherent distrust of government and the ability of someone to rule from afar.  President Ronald Reagan said, “The ten most dangerous words in the English language are “Hi, I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”  As a conservative (and a historian), I realize that the government has never managed or operated anything that private hands could not do better and more efficiently.  When the government makes the assumption of its own legitimacy and superiority over its own people, where does that leave the average American?  The overwhelming trust that some have in the government has an inverse relationship with the lack of trust they have in people.   

In “cool” circles, there are no advantages to being a conservative.  Conservatives are roundly described as racists, hayseeds, uneducated and cruel.  Democrats declare that our policies are out to kill grandmothers and that we hate or cannot stand minorities, little children, down-on-their-luck single mothers and we probably kick puppies too.  Yet, in the condemnation, they show the madness of their declarations of tolerance and caring.  William F. Buckley, noted conservative thinker, once said, “Though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view.”  As a conservative, I see the individual capable of more and I have greater belief in the individual.  At its core, that is why I’m a conservative. 

The Thrill of Victory, the Agony of Obnoxiousness

I love everything about the Olympics – the overwrought opening ceremonies, the parade of nations, the competition of athletes and the Olympic ideal that conflicting national policies have no role in the camaraderie of men and women in pursuit of a common goal.  There is a noble quality to the nature of the Olympics that draws me in each time.  I was fortunate enough to attend the Winter Olympic Games in the great city of Vancouver, British Columbia and it was an once-in-a-lifetime experience.  Last month, I was in Greece, the home of the modern Olympics and the experience made me more excited for the Games.  As I watch the Olympics in London, however, I’m struck by several things and sadly, not all of them positive.

There seems to be a great deal more crying and a general lack of graciousness among certain athletes.  On several occasions, I’ve seen silver medal winners reacted in such a way that undermines the importance of sportsmanship.  That is not to say that disappointment is unreasonable – indeed, it is expected.  However, how one addresses their fellow competitors, coaches and the public as a whole has not been shown in the best light.  In the gymnastic events, the Russian women did not afford themselves very well and American Mckayla Maroney treated the congratulations and condolences of her fellow vaulters as an imposition when she unexpectedly won silver in her singular event.  Yes, she just lost a gold that everybody and their mother assumed she would win but it does not excuse the behavior.  Thankfully, in interviews after the fact, she was appropriate but it does not erase the post-competition or medal stand behavior or demeanor.

Contrast that with the post-race behavior and demeanor of American runners Dawn Harper and Kellie Wells who typified the very best of graciousness and class as they respectively won the silver and bronze in the 100 meter hurdles.  There was the brave face shown by dominant Swiss cyclist Fabian Cancellara after crashing during his time trial race.  How classy was Jamaican Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce when she congratulated American Allyson Felix, who won gold in the 200m final.  Romania’s Catalina Ponor lost a heartbreaker to American Alexandra Raisman but still showed class in defeat.  There are so many more who are displaying the Olympic spirit. 

I was certainly not alone in my admiration for and attention to South African racer Oscar Pistorius.  However, the American broadcasts seem to miss the entire specialness of the man and his efforts.  Throughout the Games and NBC’s broadcasts, there was a constant focus on the prosthetics and the uniqueness of the situation.  With every race or every story, NBC highlighted the differences that Mr. Pistorius has worked so hard to cast aside and render irrelevant.  Yes, the man and his achievements are historic and it certainly does require some mention but the attention that, at times, seemed ad nauseum was a case of missing the point and pigeon-holing the young South African runner as an oddity rather than as an accomplished athlete working to make his dreams come true.  His mother never treated him differently – it is too bad the media does.

On another note of what is and what is not talked about, there has been some talk about the weight comments of Australian female swimmer Leisel Jones and American female weight lifter Holley Mangold with the addendum that no one would ever make a comment about the weight of a male athlete.  Any fan of any male sport will tell you weight is often talked about.  If we are to treat athletes without consideration of gender or condition, we must allow for analysis that cuts across the gender line.  At a time when we are considering the London Games as the games of the women with more female participation than ever before, we are reverting back to a place where women are fragile, emotionally-damageable creatures in need of kid gloves. 

The one thing that strikes me the most is the representation of one’s country.  In particular, I love seeing the efforts of small national delegations who are heroes for their Olympic struggles.  While political and economic factors might label one country as more important and news-worthy than another, on the field of competition, athletes are the same in their path and skills toward a particular event.  The widow of one of the slain Israelis of the 1972 games talked about her husband and his approach of some fencers from Lebanon and Syria.  She said she was aghast but to him, they were all athletes and indeed, she witnessed camaraderie.  That is part of the magic of the Olympics.  While they represent their respective countries, they are equalized as athletes.   

I could go on as there is much to talk about.  Perhaps, this is a good time to begin writing another Olympic article.  Or, perhaps people are done with the Olympics.  This Sunday, the closing ceremonies will bring to an end to a special time.  Already, my wife is talking about going to Rio de Janeiro in 2016.  I must admit I’m intrigued.  I hope in the meantime that some current and aspiring Olympic athletes learn the true nature of the spirit of the Games and learn that their endeavors are not about them but something greater.

Queuing Up For Community

When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life.

            Aristotle, Politics  

For those above the age of forty, there might be memories of a community feel to your neighborhood where children played with one another, parents chatted and shared the dispensing of discipline and a general protectiveness of the neighborhood.  Strangers in the neighborhood were welcomed but asked their business.  New neighbors were greeted and made to feel a part of the communal esprit de corps.  In a great many neighborhoods today, that feeling no longer exists.  People are sequestered in their air conditioned homes and only come out and communicate with neighbors when the lawn needs mowing or watered.  However, I have experienced another example of community – the queue. 

About ten years ago, I was attending a baseball game and parked in the lot of a closed K-Mart, one I’d used before and one where about fifty others were using as well.  We made the long but manageable trek to the ballpark, enjoyed the game and returned to the lot only to find nearly seventy cars had been towed.  As the various fans gathered, we began to fan out, looking for a sign and sure enough, behind a tree, was a sign warning of towing.  In a society increasingly known for looking out for oneself, we gathered together and made a plan.  One person called the towing company to find out the cost of getting our cars out ($150) and another sought out the nearest ATM machine.

Together, we walked about two miles to the towing company and approached the window together.  In the midst of this line, I discovered that we were together, bounded as one in the face of injustice.  Injustice might be a bit overwrought but we did develop a camaraderie that night as we helped one another with answers to questions.  People before us told us the procedure upon stepping up to the company’s representative, jokes were shared that mocked the officiousness of the company and a general affinity for one another who shared the same predicament was evident. 

Yet, these types of instances need not be all bad.  Eight years ago, I queued up to vote in the presidential election.  People were excited and represented those willing and desirous of doing their civic duty.  Early on in my wait, it was discovered that a young man near the front was voting for the first time.  The citizens clapped and congratulated him and upon his exit, he was congratulated once more, this time with high-five slaps and handshakes.  I’ve always felt this congeniality when voting before and since but that day, it brought home for me the nature of Americans and their sense of community.

In the face of recent technological breakthroughs and cultural changes, there is much to bemoan about the loss of community.  I also honestly believe the future of our community is dependent upon the revival of physical, actual (non-virtual) communities.  Yet, there are moments where people break from their own lives and work and commiserate with one another in a genuine togetherness.  I wonder if this phenomenon is common in other countries.  Perhaps, other countries have not seen their sense of community erode the way it has here in the States.  I know that the U.S. is not devoid of this attitude and there are plenty of examples of it but it is not as strong as it once was.  Perhaps, we can take a lesson from the queue.  There is still something within us that craves this feeling.